Author Manuscript

Title: The Alcohol-to-Jet Conversion Pathway for Drop-In Biofuels: Techno-Economic

Evaluation

Authors: Scott Geleynse; Kristin Brandt; Michael Wolcott; Manuel Garcia-Perez;

Xiao Zhang

This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer
review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofrea-
ding process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of
Record.

To be cited as: 10.1002/cssc.201801690

Link to VoR: https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.201801690

FULL PAPER
The Alcohol-to-Jet Conversion Pathway for Drop-In Biofuels:
Techno-Economic Evaluation
Scott Geleynse[a,b], Kristin Brandt[c], Manuel Garcia
-Perez[d], Michael Wolcott[c], Xiao Zhang*[a,b
Abstract: Alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) is a process for the conversion of
alcohols to an alternative jet fuel blendstock based on catalytic steps
historically utilized by the petroleum refining and petrochemical
industry. This pathway provides a means for producing a sustainable
alternative jet fuel (SAJF) from a wide variety of resources, offering a
near term opportunity for alcohol producers to enter the SAJF
market and for the aviation sector to meet growing SAJF demand. In
this article, we review the technical background and evaluate
selected variations of ATJ processes. Simulation and modeling is
employed to assess some ATJ conversion schemes, with a
particular focus on comparisons between the use of an ethanol or
isobutanol intermediate. While the utilization of isobutanol offers a
34% lower conversion cost for the catalytic upgrading process, the
cost of alcohol production is estimated to contribute to over 80% of
the total cost at the refinery. The cost of feedstock and alcohol
production has a dominant effect on the overall process economics.
1. Introduction
1.1 Alcohols-to-Jet (ATJ) for SAJF Production
A great deal of effort in the last few decades has focused
on the development of a sustainable and economically viable
process to generate transportation fuels. The aviation industry in
particular has recognized that sustainable alternative jet fuels
(SAJF) are essential to reduce the environmental impact and
[a] Dr. S. Geleynse and Dr. X. Zhang
Bioproducts, Sciences, and Engineering Laboratory
Washington State University
2710 Crimson Way, Richland WA 99354
E-mail: x.zhang@wsu.edu
[b] Dr. S. Geleynse and Dr. X. Zhang
Gene and Linda School of Chemical Engineering and
Bioengineering
Washington State University
[c] K. Brandt and Dr. M. Wolcott
Composite Materials Engineering Center
Washington State University
PO Box 645815, Pullman WA 99164
[d] Dr. M. Garcia-Perez
Biological Systems Engineering
Washington State University
PO Box 64120, Pullman WA 99164
Supporting information for this article is given via a link at the end of
the document.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
dependence of aviation on foreign sources of oil, improving the
sustainability of transportation[1]. Worldwide, the aviation industry
has expressed the need to accelerate the deployment of SAJF,
with industry and governmental organizations stablishing
aspirational goals for increased use of fuels from alternative
feedstocks including the International Air Transport Association
committing to achieve carbon-neutral grown by 2020 and 50%
emissions reductions by 2050 [2]. The aviation industry employs
strict regulations for the deployment of new technologies,
including those aimed at decarbonizing air travel, in order to
maintain consistent and safe operation. Therefore, any new
fuels must be fungible with existing aviation turbines and fuel
distribution systems; in other words, only “drop-in” biofuels are
possible in jet fuel markets. In the United States, all bioderived
alternative jet fuel pathways must be approved by ASTM D7566
Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels Containing
Synthesized Hydrocarbons, following a rigorous qualification
process[3].
Several processes for producing SAJF have been qualified
to date and some pathways have been demonstrated with
commercial success at limited capacity around the world[4].
There remains a need, however, to further reduce the cost and
increase availability of alternative fuels by developing production
through additional sources of available feedstocks [5]. The most
recent addition to the list of qualified alternative jet fuel pathways
is the alcohol-to-jet process (ATJ), allowing for production of jet
fuel through from alcohol produced through biochemical
fermentation routes [6,7].
The upgrading of an alcohol intermediate to hydrocarbon
fuels may be applied to a number of alcohol-producing
processes including via conventional fermentation of
carbohydrates (including from starch and lignocellulosic sources
of carbohydrates) or advanced fermentation using highly
modified microbes. In the United States, this concept may be an
attractive route for existing ethanol production capacity to
overcome the so-called “blendwall”, the market saturation point
generated by the limited use for gasoline blends higher than 10
vol.% ethanol, and respond to reduction in demand for other
transportation fuels as electric vehicle use rises. While updates
to corn and sugarcane ethanol facilities are possibly the most
immediate application of the ATJ pathway, its application for
lignocellulosic or other non-conventional feedstocks is the same
downstream[8].
To date, several academic techno-economic and lifecycle
assessments have been applied to ATJ and other SAJF
pathways to estimate cost and impact[6b,7,9]. It is difficult, however,
to use techno-economic assessment to directly compare
economic feasibility between pathways that utilize different
FULL PAPER
feedstocks and potentially integrate with existing industries and
supply chains. In addition, there has been little economic study
centered on the technological details of the catalytic upgrading
steps providing the foundation for the ATJ pathway (dehydration,
oligomerization, hydrogenation, and fractionation) and how their
implementation varies depending on the feedstock and alcohol
fermentation process used[10].
In this paper, we will expand upon these data by
constructing process economic models for the ATJ pathway
using both an ethanol and an isobutanol intermediate. Process
simulation and predesign cost estimation will be used to
generate cost estimates where data is not currently available
outside of private and proprietary research. Assessing the
differences between implementations of these routes will assist
in understanding the engineering and economic challenges and
provide information to elucidate the role of the ATJ pathway in
future research and commercial projects.
1.2 Overview of ATJ Fuel and Conversion
Process and Commercial Development
A number of companies have been developing the ATJ
process toward the goal of commercialization, with some
variations between them. Leading the efforts in regulatory
approval of ATJ derived fuel are two companies specializing in
advanced biochemically engineered fermentation processes:
Gevo, Inc and LanzaTech. Gevo, which has partnered with
Alaska Airlines for a corn sugar-based ATJ demonstration flight
and a cellulosic sugar-based flight as part of the larger
Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance (NARA)
consortium[11]. Gevo touts a proprietary isobutanol fermentation
process which utilizes an engineered yeast strain and an
advanced integrated separations system called the Gevo
Integrated Fermentation Technology (GIFT) process. LanzaTech
specializes in the fermentation of gas feedstocks, including steel
mill flue gas streams and gasified materials. LanzaTech has
recently demonstrated successful production of SAJF from gas-
fermented ethanol in partnership with Virgin Atlantic and Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory[12]. Other companies including
Butamax and Cobalt Technologies have also contributed to the
development of biorenewable butanol production, although they
are no longer pursuing ATJ commercialization[13]. Another
approach to ATJ commercialization is the addition of alcohol
upgrading to conventional ethanol production; Byogy takes this
approach primarily aimed to utilize the large sugarcane ethanol
industry in Brazil[14].
1.2.1 Certification and Qualification of
Alternative Jet Fuel from ATJ
To deploy a commercial SAJF production operation in the
United States, the technology pathway must undergo approval
and meet standards set by ASTM International. A thorough
review of the background of this process is provided by Wilson,
et.al.[15]. The conventional standard for jet fuel is defined by
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
ASTM D1655 Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine
Fuels[16], and details the requirements for petroleum distillates
meeting a certain distillation curve and other properties deeming
them “fit-for-purpose”. A standard for alternative jet fuels is
contained in ASTM D7566 Standard Specification for Aviation
Turbine Fuels Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons [3], which
provides additional pathways to qualified fuels through an
individually added annex for each fuel. The standard is regularly
updated and new fuels may be added through an extensive and
rigorous review process set forth by ASTM D4054 Standard
Practice for Qualification and Approval of New Aviation Turbine
Fuels and Fuel Additives[15].
Jet fuel blendstock produced through the ATJ pathway is
called ATJ-SPK (synthetic paraffinic kerosene) and is approved
by ASTM D7566 as part of Annex A5. Currently, only ATJ-SPK
produced from an ethanol or isobutanol intermediate is allowed
up to a 50% maximum blend. ATJ-SPK derived from other
alcohols or mixed alcohols are not currently allowed, but ASTM
states that they do intend to expand the standard to include
additional alcohols once sufficient test data is available [16,17,18]
(the standard originally only allowed isobutanol, but was revised
in 2018 to include ethanol as well). The specification defines
ATJ-SPK as alcohols processed through dehydration,
oligomerization, hydrogenation, and fractionation. Any fuel not
produced through these steps must seek its own qualification to
be used as a jet fuel blendstock, including other catalytic alcohol
upgrading processes such as the one developed by Vertimass
and Oak Ridge National Lab[19].
Although many requirements are identical between the
D1655 and D7566 fuel specifications, several additional
stipulations are added for alternative fuels; the differences
between them for ATJ-SPK are provided in supplementary
document A, Table A1. Numerous concerns regarding specific
differences between synthetic chemical blends and fit-for-
purpose petroleum distillates has resulted in stricter
requirements for alternative fuels.
1.2.2 Production of Alcohols as Jet Fuel
Intermediates
The general ATJ concept is not specific as to the type of
alcohol fed to catalytic upgrading to hydrocarbons. Several
alcohols currently derived from renewable feedstocks have been
under consideration for use in ATJ conversion including ethanol,
n-butanol, and iso-butanol. While yeast fermentation of sugar
from edible plants is often claimed as the oldest biochemical
conversion process developed by mankind, the fermentation of
saccharides from non-food plant biomass or other non-
conventional carbon sources requires more sophisticated
techniques often involving modified microbes and additional
process units. Thermochemical routes to convert biomass to
alcohols may alternately be used, often through gasification and
catalytic steps, although pathways using mixed oxygenates
other than alcohols are typically explored as well [14e,20].
The production of alcohols higher than ethanol through
biochemical routes has been thoroughly investigated, and
FULL PAPER

previous methods have been generally considered too costly for

biofuels production compared to ethanol when evaluated as an
alcohol fuel[21]. Many newly developed fermentation technologies Among these concepts is Gevo’s GIFT process which
may improve the availability of many cost-competitive alcohols involves continuous product separation alongside a
or alcohol mixtures in the near future and may achieve more metabolically engineered yeast to produce isobutanol, which is
favorable economics when used to provide alcohol for ATJ not naturally produced in useful amounts [27]. However, the
conversion. engineering of stable fermentation units can encounter
Due to the chemistry of the dehydration and additional challenges when using genetically modified
oligomerization processes, higher alcohols have a higher biocatalysts[28]. Another advanced fermentation technology is the
theoretical yield through ATJ upgrading although the maximum gas fermentation process developed by LanzaTech, which
theoretical carbon yield is identical. Oligomerization chemistry generates products such as ethanol through the fermentation of
differs with higher alcohols requiring a lower degree of waste gasses from other industrial processes (e.g. steel mill flue
oligomerization, possibly resulting in lower oligomerization costs. gas) [11a]. Although these waste gasses are typically not biogenic,
In contrast, alcohols with lower carbon numbers may carry the their fermentation displaces carbon emissions that would
advantage of achieving a more even distribution of carbon otherwise not be utilized for a chemical product and they are an
numbers in the final product, enabling the resulting product to extremely cost-effective feedstock. However, gas fermentation
have a smoother distillation curve and more closely resemble technologies have been known to involve additional challenges
conventional petroleum-based jet fuel which is a complex including gas-liquid mass transfer limitations[20b,24].
mixture containing hundreds of hydrocarbons [15,22]. The separation of alcohols from fermentation broth
Table 1 summarizes several variations of alcohol provides a source of capital and operating expenses, and will
intermediates under investigation for ATJ conversion by differ in implementation depending on the alcohol intermediate.
companies and research institutions. The range of products Although separation of pure alcohol from water is primarily
resulting from each process has considerable ramifications for carried out through distillation, other processes are typically
the expected properties of the jet fuel ultimately produced. Fuels required to overcome a water/alcohol azeotrope. In the case of
that offer a narrower range of products may encounter ethanol, mixtures up to 95.6% by weight are achievable purely
challenges in achieving the required properties of jet fuel, through distillation; the use of a pressure-swing molecular sieve
possibly leading to limited allowable blend ratios as the ASTM column is the current industrial standard for generating fuel
standards are updated. However, conversion processes with a grade ethanol[14h]. In the case of butanol (both n-butanol and iso-
narrower range of products, i.e. purer chemical compounds, do butanol), the azeotrope is self-entrained, forming a
offer potential for these companies to market them as higher- heterogeneous azeotrope with two liquid phases. Pure alcohol
value co-products. streams can be obtained using a decanter feeding each phase
to a separate stripping column. [14i].
For use in ATJ conversion, however, distillation to the
Table 1. Comparison of various advanced alcohol-producing technologies azeotrope concentration without further processing is likely
explored and currently in development for use in ATJ upgrading and their
resulting hydrocarbon products
sufficient because the dehydration catalyst is tolerant to the
presence of small levels of water.
Alcohol- Companies and Alcohol Comments and
Producing Institutions Intermediate Reference
Process Interested/Invested
in Technology 1.2.3 Upgrading Alcohols to Hydrocarbon
Fuels: The “Core Alcohol-to-Jet” Technology
[19,23]
Conventional LanzaTech/PNNL, Ethanol
Sugar Vertimass* The core of the ATJ Process is a concept developed to
Fermentation
bridge the gap between alcohols that can be easily produced
Gas LanzaTech/PNNL Ethanol Non-sugar feedstock from renewable resources and the high-quality hydrocarbon
Fermentation (waste gasses or fuels necessary for jet turbines. This process is based on three
syngas)[14e,20b,23,24] catalytic reactions depicted in Figure 1: alcohol dehydration,
Sugar to Butanol Gevo iso-butanol [25] olefin oligomerization, and hydrogenation, followed by
Fermentation fractionation of the synthetic paraffin product. Similar
technologies built around olefin oligomerization have been
Catalytic PNNL Ethanol Non-sugar feedstock historically used to generate a variety of liquid fuels including
[14e,21c]
(thermochemical)
Conversion of
gasoline and diesel and are fully capable of generating
Syngas to hydrocarbons in the jet range as well[25,30]. In practice, a mixture
Ethanol of synthetic paraffins are created in the kerosene range and
[13,26]
fractioned off to produce a viable jet blendstock and the
Non-specific Byogy, White Dog
Labs
remaining cuts are used for products in the naphtha and/or
diesel range.
*The Vertimass process is not defined as an ATJ process under the current
ASTM D7566 standard

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

FULL PAPER
Figure 1. The Core Catalytic Steps in the ATJ Process
The catalytic dehydration of alcohol has predominantly
been utilized as a pathway to produce ethylene from renewable
ethanol as an alternative source to petrochemically derived
ethylene and dates back to the 1960s. Ethanol dehydration has
been explored extensively with a variety of catalysts including
zeolites, silicoaluminumphosphates, and heteropolyacid
catalysts[31,32]. Specialized ethanol-to-ethylene heterogeneous
catalysts such as Syndol have become commercially available
with high selectivity and conversion[32,33]. Dehydration of higher
alcohols is less explored, although isobutanol dehydration has
been reported achievable using a variety of heterogeneous
catalysts including zeolites, alumina, and acid catalysts also with
relatively high conversion[14b,25,32,34]. Dehydration reactions for
isobutanol can produce a mixture of butene isomers and even
initiate oligomerization reactions but a high selectivity toward
isobutene in the dehydration step is reportedly preferred for
isobutanol conversion[34].
The removal of the hydroxy group from alcohols during
dehydration generates water and results in a reduction of mass.
On a total mass basis, higher alcohols obtain a higher yield from
dehydration compared to short-chain alcohols although the
carbon yield is identical in theory. The production of water inside
the reactor requires dehydration catalysts to be water-tolerant
but the oligomerization reaction system may not be tolerant to
water and it must be completely removed from the dehydrated
product. Depending on the temperatures, pressures, and
performance of the design, a combination of distillation, liquid-
liquid separation, and molecular sieves might be used to remove
water. If there is low conversion in the dehydration reactor,
unreacted alcohols may be recycled by feeding this stream to
the prior alcohol/water separation unit (if the alcohol is produced
through fermentation).
The oligomerization of alkenes and short chain olefins to form
higher is a well-established reaction in the petrochemical
industry with a variety of forms dating back to the 1930s and
using a variety of homogeneous or heterogeneous catalysts in
single or multiple reactor configurations [30b-c,32]. In the context of
the alcohol-to-jet pathway, alkenes produced by alcohol
dehydration must be oligomerized to the desired distribution of
hydrocarbon chain lengths; typically ranging from 8 to 16
carbons for the kerosene range. Careful design of the
oligomerization process is necessary to achieve an appreciable
yield in the desired range and able to meet fuel specifications.
The design for the oligomerization unit will vary between
different alkenes fed to the process, and different catalyst
systems may be preferable depending on the alcohol
intermediate used. Several commercial ethylene oligomerization
processes have been developed including the Cheveron-Phillips
Zeigler one-step process, the Zeigler two-step process, and the
Shell Higher Olefins Process. Ethylene oligomerization for ATJ
conversion typically achieves a carbon length distribution
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
centered around C10 and C12 and ranging from C4 to
C20+[6c,30,32,35].
Iso and n-butene oligomerization has been extensively
explored, but is less developed commercially than its ethylene
counterpart[25,32,36]. The formation of C12 trimers and C16
tetramers is preferred for the jet range with or without the use of
recycle or a secondary reactor to drive further drive the growth
of C8. A molar selectivity of 20% C8, 70% C12, and 10% C16
has been described for isobutene oligomerization using an
Amberlyst-35 catalyst[25,32].
Depending on the catalyst, further isomerization and
cracking may occur during oligomerization to generate some
additional products including intermediate-numbered (i.e. C9 or
C11) carbon chains, cyclic olefins, and even aromatics [37]. These
side reactions may be beneficial for an ATJ conversion scheme
as it improves the diversity of the product’s composition to
achieve a smoother distillation curve or to meet other product
requirements.
The use of a branched alcohol (i.e. isobutanol) will result in
a higher degree of carbon branching in the oligomerized product
and final product. Branching has a complex and varied effect on
the resulting fuel properties reportedly including cold flow
properties, freeze point, and cetane number[22]. While some of
these properties are not part of the ASTM specification, they are
important in the generation of other fuel ranges such as gasoline
and diesel. While high degrees of branching may favorably
affect cold flow properties it is also associated with a lower
cetane number, an effect that is not well understood at this time.
The hydrogenation unit is yet another process used
frequently in the petrochemical industry, which saturates the
remaining double bonds of the olefins after completion of
oligomerization. Sufficiently saturated product is critical to
ensure a low reactivity of the fuel. Like the other two reaction
stages, hydrogenation can occur over a solid catalyst. Hydrogen
gas is fed to the reaction in excess to ensure near complete
conversion of olefins to paraffins. A recycle system for the
remaining hydrogen in the product stream can be achieved with
a gas/liquid separation and a compressor to return the recycle
gas to the pressure of the feed.
A supply of hydrogen is required for hydrogenation and will
contribute an additional source of production cost. Depending on
the nature of the plant as a whole, a facility may purchase
hydrogen or produce it on-site through a number of possibilities,
including using a biomass feedstock[38]. A cellulosic ATJ
biorefinery might benefit from one of these methods considering
the availability of lignin residuals left from saccharification and
fermentation, but depending on the available price of other
hydrogen from sources such as natural gas. In the case of
existing corn ethanol facilities retrofitted for ATJ, on-site bio-
hydrogen production is less attractive as residual solids are
already used for the production of distiller’s grain.
FULL PAPER
2. Results and Discussion
Process economic models were built to conduct Techno-
Economic Analysis (TEA) for the production of ATJ-SPK through
the upgrading of ethanol and isobutanol separately. Process
simulation in Aspen Plus was used to assist in estimating
process requirements and costs where not available in literature,
primarily for the Core ATJ units. Further details on the
construction of these simulations and economic models are
provided in Section 4: Computational Methods.
The techno-economic analysis based on these models
was conducted at two levels: first, the core ATJ process to
upgrade alcohol to jet fuel was evaluated on a common basis of
the amount of alcohols processed. Second, a more complete
ATJ process upgrading sugars (including both fermentation and
the Core ATJ models) was evaluated on a common basis of an
amount of sugar processed. The first level includes more
detailed capital cost estimates based on Aspen simulations
described here, while the second level expands these
evaluations to include a fermentation process based on other
TEAs; these two levels are intended to allow for better
evaluation of process configurations given different feedstock
and industry integration options.
It is important to note the limitations posed by the methods
used in these models. Although principles of predesign cost
estimation and techno-economic analysis , these analyses are
no substitute for cost estimates generated using a complete
process design and market analysis. Uncertainty levels are high
enough that scientific comparisons between these models and
current practices cannot be made; however, they do provide
insight into comparative differences between process variations.
2.1 Comparisons of Core ATJ Cases
Each Core ATJ design case was compared at a reference
capacity of 200 tons per day of alcohol fed to the process. Table
2 summarizes key details of the mass balances and yield from
these models; this data, normalized for hydrocarbon production
(10 million gallons of fuel at consistent density) is given in Table
3[7,14b,25]. While model outputs are reported to a significant digit at
the $0.01 level, note that uncertainty levels in the results remain
significant.
Table 2. Mass Balance Details achieved in Core ATJ simulation
Ethanol to Jet Isobutanol to Jet
Overall Mass Yield 0.60 0.75
Fuel Production Rate, 39.15 49.25
k-ton/yr
Oligomerization 1.27 0.02
Recycle Ratio
Fuel Product
Distribution Selected 10%/70%/20% 30%/70%/0%
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
(Gasoline/Jet/Diesel)
Table 3. Mass Balance Details from Core ATJ Models, normalized for 36.3
thousand tons (10 million gallons of ATJ-SPK) of fuel product per year
Ethanol to Jet Isobutanol to Jet
Feed Rate of Alcohol 185 147
(ton/day)
Hydrogen 1.1 1.1
Requirement (ton/day)
The differing nature of ethylene and isobutylene
oligomerization result in some key differences in the design and
output of the modeled reactor system. Isobutylene
oligomerization results in a product that is predominantly C12
and C16 olefins, and the recycle loop consists of mostly C8
products; there is little further growth past the jet fuel range.
Ethylene oligomerization, however, produces a wider range of
carbon lengths in both the product and recycle stream. As a
result, the modeled ethanol-to-jet case involved a broader
distribution around the jet range and the oligomerization system
invovles a larger recycle ratio. Fuel product distribution was
chosen based on the product ranges of model compounds at
steady state operation. The effective recycle ratio (flow rate of
the recycle stream/flow rate of fresh feed) for both systems is
shown in Table 2. Further details on the operation of each
reactor system is described in the computation methods section,
Table 10.
This approach captures, to a degree, the differences in
design between ethylene and isobutylene oligomerization within
the models under a common design methodology; practical
implementations of the process may instead require alternate
reactor configurations depending heavily on the catalyst(s) of
choice. A distribution of fuel products was selected based on the
range of carbon chains in the product stream attained by the
Aspen model. A maximum of 70% jet fuel was selected in both
cases with the remainder of product from the jet range diverted
to the gas or diesel fraction because some portion of the jet
range product will need to be fractioned off to attain the required
distillation curve and properties to meet specifications as a jet
fuel blendstock.
Economic results from the Core ATJ Process are given in
Table 4. Note that the conversion cost listed in the bottom row
represents the added cost for an alcohol-producing facility to
convert production to jet fuel in terms of dollars per gallon of fuel
blendstock. In other words, conversion cost is calculated as the
minimum fuel selling price under the assumption that the costs
of alcohol production are factored elsewhere (feedstock costs
are assumed to be zero for comparative purposes in this
analysis). It is well recognized that the alcohol feedstock cost
may have a large impact on the overall process economics. The
purpose of this approach is to isolated the feedstock cost, and
provide a comparison of the core ATJ based on two different
molecules: ethanol and isobutanol.
FULL PAPER

compression of ethylene where isobutylene can be handled in

the liquid state under pressure.
Table 4. Comparison of Core ATJ Design Case Models

Ethanol to Jet Isobutanol to Jet 5.00

Total Capital Fractionation
Investment, MM$
$24.6 $15.4 4.00
Hydrogenation
OpEx, MM$/yr $6.6 $5.6
3.00
Oligomerization
Jet Fuel Production
7.55 9.50
Rate, MMgal/yr 2.00 Dehydration
Gasoline Production
1.29 4.87
Rate, MMgal/yr 1.00
Diesel Production
Rate, MMgal/yr
2.26 0 0.00
MM$ Ethanol Isobutanol
Cost per ton of alcohol $146 $120

Conversion Cost ATJ- $0.86 $0.52 Figure 2. Base purchased equipment cost breakdown for standalone ATJ
SPK ($/gal) cases at a scale of 200 ton/day feed.

Scale: 200 ton/day alcohol feed

A comparison of operating expenses for both cases is
The cost of production is presented here in two ways: in
given in Table 6. The most notable difference between the
terms of the cost to convert a ton of feed alcohol into fuel, and
upgrading of ethanol and higher alcohols is the increased need
as the cost of production for a gallon of ATJ-SPK product.
for recycle in the oligomerization reaction step. This results in
Further breakdown of capital and operating costs used in this
increased capital costs and energy requirements that
model are described in Tables 5 and 6.
accompany higher flow rates through the reactor and distillation
units. Fixed operating expenses include labor, maintenance, and
insurance; with the exception of labor, this value is estimated as
Table 5. Capital Costs in MM$
a percentage of fixed capital investment (FCI), leading higher
Ratio Factor Ethanol to Isobutanol fixed OpEx for the ethanol to jet case.
Jet to Jet

Purchased Equipment
4.4 2.6 Table 6. Operating Expenses in MM$ / year
Cost (PEC)

Ethanol to Jet Isobutanol to Jet

Total Direct Costs 3.55 × PEC 16.9 10.5

Fixed capital Utilities 2.7 2.2

4.99 × PEC 23.3 14.3
investment (FCI)
Catalyst 0.5 0.6
Working Capital 0.20 × Yearly OpEx 1.3 1.1
Hydrogen 0.5 0.6
Total Capital
24.6 15.4 Fixed OpEx 2.9 2.2
Investment

Total OpEx 6.6 5.6

A break-down of how each reaction stage contributes to

the base purchased equipment costs shown in the top row of
Table 5 is shown in Figure 2. Each stage includes the costs of
reactors as well as separation and other equipment maintaining
recycle operation; this includes the added cost of additional
alcohol/water separation (included under dehydration). In these
models, lower capital costs of separation, dehydration, and
oligomerization of isobutanol and isobutylene result due to some
more favorable thermodynamic properties over ethanol and
ethylene; notably due to the added need for additional gas
2.2 Comparisons of ATJ from Sugar Cases
The analysis of the core ATJ process show that higher
alcohols are favorable for the conversion to drop-in aviation fuels.
However, the catalytic upgrading represents only a segment of
the production process. An integrated SAJF conversion process
starting from renewable feedstock is a complex process and the
economics can be influenced by multiple factors and many unit
operations. Due to a high level of technology uncertainty, a

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

FULL PAPER

precise and detailed determination of the complete economics of

Basis: 435 ton/day sugars
ATJ is difficult to obtain.
While higher alcohols are favorable to the core conversion
process, the technology readiness toward generating different
alcohols differs. In general, the production of higher alcohols
An economic analysis of each case was then carried out
through fermentation can require more sophisticated equipment
using the separation and Core ATJ data presented previously to
and additional costs associated with genetically modified
estimate total conversion cost of sugars to jet fuel, shown in
biocatalysts as well as a lower yield of alcohol from sugars.
Table 8. The basis for these models is 435 ton/day of sugars,
Ethanol fermentation from sugar is much more mature
corresponding to the previously used scale of 200 ton/day in the
technology compared to isobutanol fermentation using sugar as
ethanol case. As before, the feedstock price (for sugar) in both
a feedstock.
cases is assumed to be zero for comparative purposes. The
Models were constructed to evaluate scenarios for the
mass yield for both alcohols are similar because the higher yield
conversion of a sugar feedstock that is converted via either
of isobutanol to jet works to cancel out the lower fermentation
ethanol or isobutanol fermentation, followed by the ATJ design
yield. Note that in both isobutanol conversion cases, the reduced
scenarios described above. Since the details of advanced
volume of alcohols and added efficiency of ATJ through higher
fermentation technologies currently under commercial
alcohols results in reduced capital costs for the Core ATJ unit.
development are not publicly available, assumptions regarding
Either ethanol or butanol can also be obtained from
these systems were made for comparative purposes. Humbird,
sources other than sugar fermentation. For example, steel mill
et.al. provides a baseline of costs and yield for conventional
off-gasses have been shown as a very attractive source for
ethanol fermentation. For isobutanol production, a lower
ethanol production through gas fermentation, which can
theoretical mass yield of sugars to alcohols is possible and
significantly influence the final fuel cost. However, the analysis
actual yield may be even lower. In addition, higher capital cost
conducted in this paper only focuses on sugar derived alcohol.
due to additional equipment requirements such as larger
fermenters and continuous product separation, although there is
little data available regarding the costs associated with
Table 8. Sugars to Fuel Conversion Cases
proprietary isobutanol fermentation processes.
Table 7 provides a summary of key assumptions for three Ethanol Isobutanol Isobutanol
fermentation cases. Conventional ethanol fermentation costs are Fermentation Fermentation Fermentation
estimated from data provided by Humbird, et.al. Two isobutanol (low cost) (high cost)
fermentation cases are assessed; the first reflects a
Mass Yield 0.274 0.277 0.277
fermentation process with the same capital and operating
expenses as ethanol fermentation while the second assumes Alcohols Processed
200 161 161
double capital and variable operating expenses (excluding waste (ton/day)
water treatment). The low and high-cost isobutanol production
Total Capital
alternatives are selected to represent a rough bound for the total Investment, MM$
$77.4 $55.0 $94.2
cost of an integrated isobutanol fermentation system based on
publication from Gevo Inc.[27]. OpEx, MM$/yr $15.8 $13.9 $18.4
For comparative purposes, the fermentation yields in both
Jet Fuel Production
ethanol and isobutanol models are based on 90% of the Rate, MMgal/yr
7.56 7.65 7.65
theoretical maximum (max. 51.2% for ethanol and 41.2% for
isobutanol). Gasoline Production
1.29 3.92 3.92
Rate, MMgal/yr

Diesel Production
Table 7. Fermentation Unit Parameters 2.26 0 0
Rate, MMgal/yr

Ethanol Isobutanol Isobutanol Conversion Cost,

$2.84 $2.23 $3.37
Fermentation Fermentation Fermentation $/gallon jet fuel
(low cost) (high cost)
Basis: 435 ton/day sugars
Mass Yield 0.46 0.37 0.37

Purchased
Equipment Cost 7.7 7.7 15.4
(MM$) Although isobutanol fermentation may theoretically reach
Variable
up to 80% of the maximum yield of ethanol fermentation, actual
Operating 1.2 1.2 2.4 yields achieved in practice may differ depending on the specific
Costs (MM$) fermentation process. Typical modern corn ethanol process can
attain a fermentation yield of 98% theoretical maximum [39].
Isobutanol yield from proprietary processes are not available in

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

FULL PAPER

detail, but Gevo announced they achieved 1.80 to 1.85 gallons
of isobutanol per bushel of corn in 2015 (about 34.4% from
sugars, or 83.5% of theoretical maximum for isobutanol) [40].
Using these fermentation yield figures (98% and 83.5%
theoretical), the above conversion costs become $2.52 for
ethanol and $2.21/$3.37 for the isobutanol cases.
2.3 Sensitivity Analysis and Effect of Alcohol
Price
A straightforward way to evaluate the comparative costs of
alcohol-to-jet conversion from ethanol and isobutanol is to
approach the cost using a total alcohol production price. The
uncertainty of costs using an alternate or advanced fermentation
process is then contained within this price. This approach
estimates a general trend in the relationship between ATJ
upgrading costs from different alcohol intermediates, although it
should be noted that any realistic scenario involves additional
variables. A plot of these data is given in Figure 3. The vertical
dotted line at $534/ton ($1.76/gal) denotes the 2013 to 2017
average cost of ethanol production[41]. At this price for ethanol,
the cost of alcohol feedstock makes up 79.2% of the MSP in the
ethanol-to-jet base case scenario.
average cost of ethanol, an isobutanol price of 1.41 times larger
($755/ton) results in equal selling prices through both pathways
in our models. In an integrated biorefinery, the price of alcohol
will typically represent a function of both the price of feedstock at
the gate and conversion cost of feedstock to alcohols, both
adding considerably to the cost. The use of extremely low-cost
feedstocks, such as steel mill flue gas as in some
implementations by LanzaTech, can greatly reduce the final
product selling price.
To assess the impact of variations in assumptions and
process performance within the process model, sensitivity
analysis results for both Core ATJ models is shown in Figure 4.
This analysis demonstrates the effect of an increase or decrease
in a cost category for each model. Each input is varied to reflect
a range of 50% to 150% of the base case scenario.
Ethanol Intermediate
Conversion Cost ($/gal)
$0.6 $0.7 $0.8 $0.9 $1.0 $1.1
CapEx
Fixed OpEx

Utilities Costs
MSP
($/gal) Catalyst Price
$10.00
Hydrogen Price
$9.00 Ethanol
$8.00 Base Case: $0.821/gallon
Isobutanol
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
Isobutanol Intermediate
$4.00
Conversion Cost ($/gal)
$3.00
$0.4 $0.5 $0.6 $0.7
$2.00
$1.00 CapEx

$0.00 Fixed OpEx

$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 Utilities Costs
Alcohol Price ($/ton)
Catalyst Price
Figure 3. Relationship between minimum selling price (MSP) and alcohol Hydrogen Price
price using an ethanol or isobutanol intermediate. Although isobutanol
conversion offers economic benefits for alcohol-to-fuel upgrading, they may be
offset by a higher cost for the intermediate alcohol. Base Case: $0.535/gallon

Figure 4. Sensitivity analysis of model parameters on jet fuel conversion cost

Conversion of isobutanol is predicted to be cheaper than for ethanol-to-jet and isobutanol-to-jet scenarios from an alcohol feedstock.
conversion of ethanol given the same price of alcohol. It needs The bars reflect a reduction or increase in each input by 50% from the base
to be emphasized that uncertainty between these models and case.

real-world scenarios considerably complicates this analysis; a

robust and direct comparison between both cases should be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis, however. Compared to the Other modeling of alcohol-to-jet conversion strategies in
literature show the highest sensitivity to feedstock cost as well

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

FULL PAPER

as the overall conversion of raw feedstock to fuels (including

fermentation and sugar preparation)[8a,14b]. In our assessment,
we find that ATJ production through both ethanol and isobutanol
fermentation routes achieve similar total yield (see Section 2.2).
Our models do agree that the total cost of alcohols has a
dominant effect on process economics. Thus, a conversion
pathway which utilizes both fermentation to higher alcohols and
a low-cost production of fermentable feedstock would be an
ideal scenario, although no such technology is publicly under
development at this time.

2.4 Alternate Alcohol-Upgrading Conversion

Pathways

Besides the direct conversion of alcohols to the core ATJ

process, other intermediate stages have been proposed to
increase the molecular weight and variability of alcohols.
Although not reportedly used in any upcoming commercial
applications of ATJ, the Guerbet reaction has seen research
attention in and outside of the context of ATJ [14e,42]. This reaction
includes several steps that result in a mix of higher chain-length
Figure 5. Scope of the ATJ Pathway highlighting potential co-product
and branched alcohols along with a fraction of other side
opportunities using different intermediates.
products, primarily aldehydes. Direct conversion of ethanol to
isobutene has also been considered, a step that would eliminate
the need for dehydration downstream but generates additional
CO2 possibly resulting in a net reduction of carbon
efficiency[20a,43].
These alternate concepts aim to improve ethanol-to-jet
approaches by increasing the variability (in terms of length and
branching qualities) of the alcohol to better fit desired fuel
profiles downstream. This approach also introduces
opportunities for co-products (ketones, esters, higher alcohols).
The use of additional intermediate stages, however, involves the
addition of capital expenses associated with another catalytic
reactor and separation system for recycle. A pathway scope
showing some of these alternative conversion processes is
shown in Figure 5.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

FULL PAPER
3. Conclusions and Recommendations
Considering the consistent and rising demand for aviation
fuels worldwide, the alcohol-to-jet pathway offers a solution for
alcohol producers to enter the market for drop-in fossil fuel
alternatives. New alcohol production capacity using new and
high-tech fermentation technologies to convert industry residuals
such as flue gasses or lignocellulosic residues may also see the
adoption of ATJ conversion as well in the near future. Several
companies are achieving varying levels of success in developing
the implementation of the ATJ process as a route to improve the
commercial viability of advanced fermentation technologies.
Recent qualification of ATJ fuel into ASTM standards and its
demonstration in commercial aircraft also indicates momentum
toward further developments and improvements to the process
in the near future.
The ATJ pathway enables the use of alcohols from a
variety of sources to be used as a platform molecule for jet fuel
production and no particular alcohol production strategy is
required to generate a qualifying ATJ-SPK fuel as long as it
produces either ethanol or isobutanol. Both the conventional
ethanol industry, such as corn or sugarcane-based fermentation,
as well as businesses investing in new and advanced alcohol
production technologies can benefit from the ability to enter
drop-in fuel markets using the ATJ pathway. With further
advances in conversion technologies, even lignocellulosic
biorefinery concepts may utilize ATJ through fermentation of
cellulose hydrolysate or gasified biomass.
Although a variety of alcohol process streams, including
ethanol, higher alcohols, and mixed alcohols, can theoretically
be used as an intermediate for ATJ conversion, the process
differs considerably in terms of engineering and implementation
of the process depending on the alcohol used. ASTM Standards
recognize their differences and requires a separate qualification
process for a given alcohol; ethanol and isobutanol are the only
alcohols currently qualified. Any new AJF pathway based on n-
butanol, mixed alcohols/oxygenates, or other intermediates will
not only require separate qualification but will involve differently
engineered catalyst and separation systems.
The primary difference in implementation between ethanol-
to-jet and isobutanol-to-jet lie in the configuration and catalyst
selections involved in dehydration and oligomerization to
produce higher olefins. Once olefins are produced in the
appropriate range, the remaining hydrogenation and
fractionation steps are similar regardless of process. In both
cases, the main functional challenge in designing an ATJ
reaction scheme is to drive the formation of oligomers to
maximize yield in the appropriate range needed to meet fuel
specifications. Although fractionation allows for further
refinement of the product to meet specifications, it is important to
increase value by ensuring as much of the product is recovered
as jet fuel or another marketable co-product.
ATJ from short-chain alcohols like ethanol generally
provides superior flexibility to generate a wide range of fuel
products, due to the more varied nature of the oligomerized
ethylene streams. Isobutanol oligomerization, however, carries
certain advantages in terms of processing costs and has a
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
greater mass yield in terms of alcohol conversion. Although
there are trade-offs between the conversion costs from ethanol
and isobutanol, the deciding factor between which process
achieves better economics is the cost of producing the alcohol
intermediate. Since the cost of producing alcohols through
fermentation is a function of both the fermentation unit and the
cost of sugar (or alternative feedstock) price, the selling price of
ATJ fuel is highly dependent on the technology used for alcohol
production. An alcohol-production process with a high carbon
yield from a low-cost feedstock is ideal.
It should be noted that public policy-based incentives for
biofuels production such as those offered by the Renewable
Fuel Standard or the Low Carbon Fuel Standard in the United
States can significantly affect the decision-making of biofuels
businesses. The ability to generate renewable identification
numbers (RINs) or other carbon credits may ultimately
determine the economics of any SAJF pathway. The ability to
upgrade alcohols as a platform molecule, produced from a
variety of sugar, waste, cellulosic, and other sources, may allow
SAJF producers the flexibility to appropriately capitalize on both
low cost and incentivized feedstocks that are available.
The models explored in this study represent portions of a
complete biorefinery that would realistically implement ATJ
conversion. The success of ATJ biorefinery projects would rely
on numerous other factors including feedstock availability and
cost, supply chain and infrastructure, and co-product generation.
The sales of co-products, including additional fuel cuts besides
jet, has a significant effect on minimum selling price particularly
when the co-product is priced considerably higher or lower than
the jet fraction; higher-value co-products would be a major
benefit to an ATJ process. Feedstock cost shows the greatest
sensitivity toward improving process economics. However, the
production of isobutanol or other higher alcohols over or in
addition to ethanol provides significant improvement, provided
that the combined cost of alcohol production is not significantly
impacted. Further research and development into alcohol-
production processes that utilize low-cost feedstocks and
generate higher alcohols is recommended.
Several areas have been identified as key bottlenecks that
can determine the viability of ATJ production in the near term.
We make the following recommendations and conclusions
based on results from our models:
 At an average alcohol price in our models, the production
of alcohol feedstock for ATJ upgrading is estimated to
contribute approximately 80% of the production cost for
jet blendstock at the refinery. Improvements to alcohol
production to generate low-cost alcohols is key to
improving viability of ATJ.
 Use of higher alcohols can provide favorable
thermodynamics for lower cost separation and catalytic
upgrading stages, with our models showing a 34% cost
reduction in conversion cost for isobutanol over ethanol.
A greater production cost for higher alcohols could easily
negate this benefit however, depending on the state and
costs of advanced fermentation technology used to
produce the alcohol.
FULL PAPER

 Reactor and catalyst design for the oligomerization unit Cost analysis comparisons were conducted using a
should be directed to efficiently generate product-range discounted cash flow model, with financial and operation
fuels with recycle in mind, to minimize equipment costs assumptions summarized in Table 9. These assumptions are
through smaller recycle requirements.
 Within the catalytic upgrading process,
capital expenses contribute a significant
impact on economics. Reduction in
equipment and facilities costs, potentially
through integration with existing industrial
facilities and infrastructure, offers the
largest area for reduction in risk for the
installation of an ATJ conversion unit.
based on recommendations and economic analyses by Bann, et.
Current efforts in the development of this technology are
al., and Petter, et. al.,[14c,49]. Further details of these calculations
carried out by private entities with proprietary processes.
can be found in the supplementary spreadsheets for this paper.
Although our models attempt to capture and predict the
performance of these systems, we cannot conclude that either
the ethanol or isobutanol to jet cases will offer superior
Table 9. Summary of Financial and Operation Assumptions for Cash Flow
economics now or in the future. As separate processes, they Models
offer different advantages depending on many factors, and
should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Biochemical Parameter Assumed Value
production of alcohols from cheap, but relatively difficult to
Cost Year 2015
ferment, feedstocks might achieve a lower production cost using
an ethanol intermediate. Alternately, where conventional sugar Process Uptime 90%
feedstocks are available, production of higher alcohols may be a
preferred strategy to reduce cost. Plant financing 30% equity

Plant Life 20 years + 3 years for construction

4. Computational Methods Income tax rate 16.9%

Inflation 2%

4.1 Process Design Cases and Cost Discount Rate, Real/Nominal 10% / 12.2%
Estimation Working Capital 20% yearly OPEX

Estimates for the capital and operating expenses for
various stages of the process were collected from literature
when available, augmented by our own process simulations
generated using Aspen Plus. Cost estimate data was collected
from Humbird, et. al.[44] for details of ethanol production and
separation (also used to estimate isobutanol production costs)
as well as Tan, et. al.[14e] for data regarding catalytic reactor
costs. Details for the Core ATJ process and isobutanol
separation were gathered using Apsen Plus simulations
described below. Details of the references for capital and
operating cost estimates are available in the spreadsheets
contained in the supplementary documents of this report. To
estimate total capital costs, a factored approach based from
Peters and Timmerhaus[45] was used to correlate additional
costs such as installation, outside battery-limits, and indirect
costs from the costs of major process equipment and the
assumption that the process is an "add-on" to an existing facility
Variable operating expenses for utilities and materials
were based on process models with cost data from EIA,
Humbird et. al., Chu et. al., and Turton et. al., [44,46]. The cost of
steam delivery was estimated based on the natural gas costs for
equivalent energy rates. Fixed operating expenses were
adapted from Peters, et. al.,[45] for maintenance, Jones et. al.,[47]
for taxes and insurance, and Marrs et. al., [48] for cost of labor.
Depreciation schedule 7 years, MACRS schedule
Construction spending schedule (% 8% first year, 60% second year,
of FCI) 32% third year
Maintenance 6% TPEC
4.2 Process Modelling and Simulation
Aspen Plus simulations were used to help estimate
process information (mass/energy balance, module costs, and
utility requirements) for the catalytic conversion steps and for
isobutanol/water separation. Key differences are present
between the upgrading process for ethanol and isobutanol,
which were modeled separately. Although the costs for the
dehydration of ethanol to ethylene has already been extensively
studied in literature [31,33,50], the process was modeled in our
simulations to maintain consistent analyses between isobutanol
and ethanol cases. Figure 6 includes a block diagram of the
process flow units for both Core ATJ units. Detailed diagrams

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

FULL PAPER

showing the unit operations in each model are provided in the C8 olefins directed to the bottoms product. Distillate is recycled
supplementary documents, Figures A1 and A2. through the oligomerization reactor where olefins further grow
reacting with fresh feed. The presence of a higher amount of
Figure 6. Block Diagram of the ATJ Process Model light olefins results in a larger recycle ratio and the need for a
larger reactor. Catalyst costs and lifetime are based on Tan, et.
al.[9]. A 2% purge is included from the recycle steam.
Process simulations were carried out using the Unifac A 3:1 molar feed of hydrogen is maintained to the
thermodynamic package and components from the Aspen hydrogenation reactor. Due to the excess hydrogen feed, a
databanks as pure compounds for water, ethanol, isobutanol, 100% conversion is assumed and the recycle system is included
ethylene, and isobutylene. Mixtures of olefins and SPK are to reuse hydrogen. The gas recycle system results in hydrogen
simulated using model compounds; higher olefin and paraffin usage close to the theoretical requirement. This includes
mixtures are grouped by carbon numbers in the lengths equipment for gas/liquid separation at 50° C and 200 psig, as
dominantly produced. well as a compressor for recycled gas. A 2% purge stream is
For each reactor system (dehydration, oligomerization, and included to remove impurities and may be used as boiler fuel to
hydrogenation), equipment for the reactors, heat exchangers, recover its energy.
pumps/compressors, and separation units needed for A finishing section was added to make final adjustments in
maintaining recycle are simulated. Costs used for alcohol/water product distribution and properties, completing the process of
separation includes costs due to added capacity to a co-located generating the fuel blendstock. This was modeled as the
unit for fermentation broth separation. The conditions of each addition of two distillation columns, both similar in design to the
reactor (temperature/pressure) were assumed based on column used in the oligomerization loop. The real
literature values and the actual conversion of each is simplified implementation of the process may involve more complex
with fixed single pass conversion parameters and product fractionation of multiple products or removal of a significant
distributions also assumed based on literature. The operating portion of product during finishing, but for the purposes of this
conditions of each reactor may vary between different model it was assumed to have no effect on the ultimate yield or
implementations, depending on specific catalyst performance distribution of the product. Practically, the fuel blendstock
and process streams. A summary of some of these assumed production will include a range of fuels in addition to jet,
key parameters is shown in Table 10 and more detailed potentially including naphtha, gasoline, and diesel although the
descriptions follow.
Dehydration reactors are
assumed to achieve a 90% Table 10. Reactor Conditions Used in Core ATJ Models
single-pass conversion of
[31c,34] [14e,20a,25,30b,35a] [14e,20a,25]
alcohol. The product from Dehydration Oligomerization Hydrogenation
dehydration is separated,
Ethanol Isobutanol Ethanol Isobutanol Ethanol and Isobutanol
removing water and unreacted
alcohols to be sent back to Temperature [°C] 340 325 250 100 100
water/alcohol separation for
recycle[31b,33,34]. Ethylene Pressure [psig] 55 60 300 250 250
separation involves higher 90% 90% 40% C10 20% C8
Single Pass
pressures than isobutene 20% C8, C12 70% C12 100%
Conversion/Distribution 10% C6, C16 10% C16
separation as well as a
requirement for very low recycle integrated with recycle designed to drive 3:1 molar feed of H2;
Recycle Configuration separation of feed conversion to higher olefins (C12+) recycle of H2 is
temperature refrigerant. A
alcohols included
molecular sieve is included to
further eliminate water from the
distillate stream; nearly
complete removal of water is distribution of products varies depending on implementation[14e,f].
necessary to avoid contamination in the oligomerization reactor In these models, production of jet range is favored although
system. some portion of the jet range product is assumed to be
The design of oligomerization reactor systems will differ fractioned off in order to attain a distillation curve necessary to
depending on the selected catalyst. It is not the goal of this meet jet fuel specifications. The remaining hydrocarbon product
model to assess the performance of any individual catalyst or is treated as either a gasoline or diesel co-product. To relate the
design, but to predict and compare the overall costs following sale of these fractions to the selling price of jet fuel, both fuel co-
common design principles and assumptions. A heterogeneous products are correlated linearly to the calculated minimum
catalyst reactor system is modeled with a recycle configuration selling price of jet fuel according to EIA data from 1983 through
to drive the reaction to the target carbon range. A distillation 2016[51].
column separates the reactor product. Light olefins (primarily C8 Detailed cost estimates of an ethanol separation unit is
and smaller) are recovered in the distillate with a target of 10% available in the NREL corn stover ethanol facility report [44], which

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

FULL PAPER

was adapted for use in this model. The separation of butanol
and isobutanol, however, is carried out using a separate
separation scheme. Cost and utility requirements for this
process was estimated using an Aspen Plus model diagrammed
in Figure 7.
Tables 11 and 12 provide additional cost estimation details
for both Core ATJ models, broken down to the three major
process units. Installation costs are estimated as part of the ratio
factors outlined by Peters, et al., which are also used to estimate
outside battery limits costs. Expanded versions of these tables,
with process flow rates and costs/utility usage for individual unit
operations (Tables A2, A3, and A4) are available in the
supplementary documents.

Figure 7. Aspen Plus Model of Isobutanol Separation Unit

The isobutanol separator system is based on the n-butanol

separation unit model by Luyben, et. al. [52]. The heterogeneous
azeotropic distillation configuration is capable of achieving
99.9% purity of both isobutanol and water using two distillation
columns, with both distillate streams fed to a condenser and
decanter between them. This model includes a feed of
fermentation broth (3% isobutanol) to column 1, as well as a
recycle stream (31% isobutanol) of the combined
water/isobutanol waste recovered from the core ATJ unit. Since
the recycle stream is high enough alcohol concentration to
separate into two liquid phases, it is fed directly to the decanter.
At the conditions used in our model, the added capacity
from the recycle stream accounts for 26% of the total capacity of
the entire separation unit. Due to economy of scale, using the
separation unit for both fermentation broth and dehydration
recycle is more economical than separate units. In the analysis
of standalone alcohol upgrading, it is assumed that a separation
unit for fermentation broth is already accounted for and thus only
the additional cost of a 26% increase in capacity of the required
equipment is considered as capital expenses contributing to the
conversion cost. In the ethanol-to-jet case, the dehydration unit
to produce ethylene does not require this recycle and this added
cost is not included.
Several utilities are utilized throughout the process model,
including cooling water, refrigeration, natural gas, wastewater
treatment, and steam. The usage of each utility was estimated
through simulation and a cost per unit of usage was assigned for
each utility. This follows the assumption that the ATJ unit is co-
located within a larger facility (ie. a brownfield facility) capable of
supplying these utilities. The steam utility used is high-pressure
steam at 250°C. Process units operating above this temperature
are heated by natural gas using process furnaces incurring
greater equipment costs. Using a low or medium-pressure
steam utility would therefore result in increased capital expenses
and steam usage diverted to natural gas.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

FULL PAPER

Table 11. Unit-Level Details for Core Ethanol-to-Jet Model

Dehydration Oligomerization Hydrogenation and Fractionation

Primary Flow Streams Feed Rate: 308 Feed Rate: 169 Feed Rate: 165
(lb/min) Product: 169 Product: 165 Product: 167
To Recycle: 139

Equipment Costs (MM$) $1.6 $1.4 $1.5

Installation Costs* (MM$) $2.5 $2.2 $2.4

Inside Battery Limits Capital $4.1 $3.6 $3.9

Cost (MM$)

Utilities Usage Electricity: 1337 kW Electricity: 208 kW Electricity: 20 kW

Steam: 1669 kW Steam: 154 kW Steam: 300 kW
Refrigeration (-50°C): 2196 kW Cooling Water: 3937 kW Cooling Water: 1774 kW
Gas: 2137 kW Gas: 1695 kW
Waste Water: 20 kGal/day

*(Includes equipment installation, piping, electrical, and instrumentation)

Table 12. Unit-Level Details for Core Isobutanol-to-Jet Model

Dehydration Oligomerization Hydrogenation and Fractionation

Primary Flow Streams Feed Rate: 308 Feed Rate: 207 Feed Rate: 205
(lb/min) Product: 207 Product: 205 Product: 207
To Recycle: 101

Equipment Costs (MM$) $0.4 $0.4 $1.5

Installation Costs* (MM$) $0.6 $0.7 $2.5

Inside Battery Limits Capital $1.0 $1.1 $4.0

Cost (MM$)

Utilities Usage Electricity: 6 kW Electricity: 7 kW Electricity: 78 kW

Steam: 2497 kW Steam: 240 kW Steam: 300 kW
Cooling Water: 3368 kW Cooling Water: 1301 kW Cooling Water: 1951 kW
Gas: 869 kW Gas: 1442
Waste Water: 12 kGal/day

*(Includes equipment installation, piping, electrical, and instrumentation)

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

FULL PAPER
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the
Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance (NARA), supported
by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive
Grant no. 2011-68005-30416 from the USDA National Institute
of Food and Agriculture, as well as the U.S. Federal Aviation
Administration Office of Environment and Energy under 13-C-
AJFE-WaSU ASCENT project COE-2014-01. The project was
managed by James Hileman and Nathan Brown.
Highlights:
• The alcohol-to-jet pathway (ATJ) was recently been qualified
under ASTM specifications ASTM D7566 Annex 5 for the production
of drop-in aviation fuel.
• A variety of alcohols (e.g. ethanol, butanol) produced from
different processes (e.g. thermochemical or biochemical) may be
catalytically upgraded to SPK suitable for use as drop-in aviation fuel
blendstock.
• Process economic models for ATJ were developed to estimate
conversion costs in several conversion technologies using ethanol or
isobutanol feedstock. Trade-offs between ethanol and higher
alcohols are explored.
• Recommendations are made for the development of advanced
fermentation technologies and the use of low cost feedstocks to
reduce the cost of ethanol or higher alcohols for ATJ production.
Keywords: keyword 1 • keyword 2 • keyword 3 • keyword 4 •
keyword 5
[1] N. N. Young, “Advanced Biofuels: Creating Jobs and Lowering Prices
at the Pump”, 2014.
[2] a) FAA, “U.S. Aviation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan”,
2012. b) Steele, P. IATA, 2018.
[3] ASTM, “Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing
Synthesized Hydrocarbons”, 2017.
[4] U.S. Department of Energy - DOE -, “Alternative Aviation Fuels:
Overview of Challenges, Opportunities, and Next Steps”, 2017.
[5] E. Newes, J. Han, S. Peterson, “Potential Avenues for Significant
Biofuels Penetration in the U.S. Aviation Market”, 2017.
[6] a) W. C. Wang, L. Tao, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 801–
822; b) T. Radich, The Flight Paths for Biojet Fuel, 2015; c) K. P.
Brooks, L. J. Snowden-Swan, S. B. Jones, M. G. Butcher, G. S. . Lee,
D. M. Anderson, J. G. Frye, J. E. Holladay, J. Own, L. Harmon, et al., in
Biofuels Aviat. Feed. Technol. Implement., 2016, pp. 109–146.
[7] S. de Jong, R. Hoefnagels, A. Faaij, R. Slade, R. Mawhood, M.
Junginger, Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 2015, 9, 778–800.
[8] C. E. Wyman, Biotechnol. Prog. 2003, 19, 254–262.
[9] a) G. W. Diederichs, M. Ali Mandegari, S. Farzad, J. F. Görgens,
Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 216, 331–339; b) M. D. Staples, R. Malina, H.
Olcay, M. N. Pearlson, J. I. Hileman, A. Boies, S. R. H. Barrett, Energy
Environ. Sci. 2014, 7, 1545; c) S. J. Bann, R. Malina, M. D. Staples, P.
Suresh, M. Pearlson, W. E. Tyner, J. I. Hileman, S. Barrett, Bioresour.
Technol. 2017, 227, 179–187; d) P. Trivedi, H. Olcay, M. D. Staples, M.
R. Withers, R. Malina, S. R. H. Barrett, Appl. Energy 2015, 141, 167–
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
174; e) E. C. D. Tan, L. J. Snowden-Swan, M. Talmadge, A. Dutta, S.
Jones, K. K. Ramasamy, M. Gray, R. Dagle, A. Padmaperuma, M.
Gerber, et al., Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 2017, 11, 41–66; f) J.
Crawford, Masters Thesis, University of Washington, 2013; d) J. Han, L.
Tao, M. Wang, Biotechnol. Biofuels 2017, 10, 21; h) L. Tao, J. N.
Markham, Z. Haq, M. J. Biddy, Green Chem. 2017, 19, 1082–1101; i) C.
M. Alves, M. Valk, S. de Jong, A. Bonomi, L. A. M. van der Wielen, S. I.
Mussatto, Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefining 2017, 11, 67–91
[10] a) G. Yao, M. D. Staples, R. Malina, W. E. Tyner, Biotechnol. Biofuels
2017, 10, DOI 10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.11.071; b) X. Zhao, T. R.
Brown, W. E. Tyner, Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 198, 755–763.
[11] a) “Alaska Airlines Flies on Gevo’s Renewable Alcohol to Jet Fuel,” can
be found under http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/alaska-
airlines-flies-on-gevos-renewable-alcohol-to-jet-fuel-300281122.html,
2016. b) “Forest-powered biofuel flight heads to Washington, D.C.,” can
be found under https://news.wsu.edu/2016/11/14/forest-powered-
biofuel-flight/, 2016.
[12] a) J. Holmgren, A. Chung, D. Abdul Rahim Hashim, J. Messina, G.
Rieschel, S. Simpson, T. Ryoso, R. Wyse, N. Gormly, LanzaTech
Executive Summary, 2018; b) Lanzatech, “Low Carbon Fuel Project
Achieves Breakthrough as LanzaTech Produces Jet Fuel from Waste
Gases for Virgin Atlantic,” 2016;.c) D. W. Griffin, M. A. Schultz, Environ.
Prog. Sustain. Energy 2012, 31, 219–224.
[13] a) Butamax, BP, DuPont Industrial Biosciences, “BP and DuPont Joint
Venture, Butamax®, Announces Next Step in Commercialization of Bio-
Isobutanol with Acquisition of Ethanol Facility in Kansas,” 2017; b) B.
Sims, Ethanol Prod. Mag. 2012.
[14] GreenAir Online, “Avianca and Lufthansa team up with US next-gen
biofuel companies to support alcohol-to-jet fuel approval,” can be found
under http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=1854, 2014.
[15] G. R. Wilson, T. Edwards, E. Corporan, R. L. Freerks, Energy and
Fuels 2013, 27, 962–966.
[16] ASTM, Annu. B. ASTM Stand. 2010, 1–16.
[17] Gevo, “ASTM Completes Revision of Standard Specificaiton,” can be
found under http://ir.gevo.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=238618&p=irol-
newsArticle_print&ID=2156242, 2016.
[18] ASTM, “Standard Practice for Qualification and Approval of New
Aviation Turbine Fuels”, 2016.
[19] C. E. Wyman, “Novel Vertimass Catalyst for Conversion of Ethanol and
Other Alcohols into Fungible Gasoline, Jet, and Diesel Fuel Blend
Stocks,” can be found under
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/07/f24/wyman_bioenergy_2015.
pdf, 2015.
[20] a) V. L. Dagle, C. Smith, M. Flake, K. O. Albrecht, M. J. Gray, K. K.
Ramasamy, R. A. Dagle, Green Chem. 2016, 18, 1880–1891; b) P. C.
Munasinghe, S. K. Khanal, Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 5013–5022;
c) K. Atsonios, M. A. Kougioumtzis, K. D. Panopoulos, E. Kakaras, Appl.
Energy 2015, 138, 346–366.
[21] a) P. H. Pfromm, V. Amanor-Boadu, R. Nelson, P. Vadlani, R. Madl,
Biomass and Bioenergy 2010, 34, 515–524; b) S. Y. Lee, J. H. Park, S.
H. Jang, L. K. Nielsen, J. Kim, K. S. Jung, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2008,
101, 209–228; c) D. Antoni, V. V. Zverlov, W. H. Schwarz, Appl.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 77, 23–35.
[22] I. Coordinating Research Councel, Handbook of Aviation Fuel
Properties, Society Of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pensylvania,
1983.
[23] A. Havill, “Hybrid Catalytic Route to Fuels from Biomass Syngas
Improve Economics and Process Sustainability”, 2015.
[24] F. Min, M. Kopke, S. Dennis, in Liq. Gaseous Solid Biofuels - Convers.
Tech., InTech, 2013.
[25] M. W. Peters, H. Ranch, “Renewable Jet Fuel Blendstock From
Isobutanol”, 2013.
[26] “White Dog Labs, Inc.,” can be found under
https://www.whitedoglabs.com/, n.d.
[27] R. Kolodziej, J. Scheib, 2014, 1–8.
FULL PAPER
[28] M. L. Shuler, F. Kargi, in Bioprocess Eng. Basic Concepts, 2002, pp.
421–462.
[29] M. F. Dohertry, M. F. Malone, in Concept. Des. Distill. Syst., 2001, pp.
351–392.
[30] a) S. A. Tabak, A. A. Avidan, F. J. Krambeck, 1985, 293–299; b) M.
Sanati, C. Hörnell, S. G. Järäs, M. sanati, C. Hörnell, S. G. Järäs, 1999,
pp. 236–288; c) C. T. O’Connor, M. Kojima, Catal. Today 1990, 6, 329–
349; d) E. F. Lutz, J. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63, 202.
[31] a) A. Morschbacker, Polym. Rev. 2009, 49, 79–84; b) M. Zhang, Y. Yu,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 9505–9514; c) P. Haro, P. Ollero, F.
Trippe, Fuel Process. Technol. 2013, 114, 35–48; d) N. Zhan, Y. Hu, H.
Li, D. Yu, Y. Han, H. Huang, Catal. Commun. 2010, 11, 633–637.
[32] W.-C. Wang, L. Tao, J. Markham, Y. Zhang, E. Tan, L. Batan, E.
Warner, M. Biddy, 2016.
[33] N. K. Kochar, R. Merims, A. S. Padia, Chem. Eng. Prog. 1981.
[34] J. D. Taylor, M. M. Jenni, M. W. Peters, Top. Catal. 2010, 53, 1224–
1230.
[35] a) A. Finiels, F. Fajula, V. Hulea, Catal. Sci. Technol. 2014, 4, 2412; b)
A. Forestière, H. Olivier-Bourbigou, L. Saussine, Oil Gas Sci. Technol. -
Rev. l’IFP 2009, 64, 649–667.
[36] a) M. E. Wright, B. G. Harvey, R. L. Quintana, Energy & Fuels 2008, 22,
3299–3302; b) M. E. Wright, “Process for the Dehydration of Aqueous
Bio-Derived Terminal Alcohols to Terminal Alkenes”, 2012.
[37] R. J. Quann, L. A. Green, S. A. Tabak, F. J. Krambeck, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 1988, 27, 565–570.
[38] a) M. Ni, D. Y. C. Leung, M. K. H. Leung, K. Sumathy, Fuel Process.
Technol. 2006, 87, 461–472; b) F. Mueller-Langer, E. Tzimas, M.
Kaltschmitt, S. Peteves, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2007, 32, 3797–3810.
[39] S. Irwin, Farmdoc Dly. 2016, 6, 3.
[40] Gevo Inc., “Gevo Announces Key Operational and Financial Targets for
2016 Following Settlement With Butamax,” can be found under
http://ir.gevo.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=238618&p=irol-
newsArticle&ID=2089814, 2015.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
[41] D. Hofstrand, “Tracking Ethanol Profitability,” can be found under
https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/energy/html/d1-10.html, 2017.
[42] a) D. Gabriëls, W. Y. Hernández, B. Sels, P. Van Der Voort, A.
Verberckmoes, Catal. Sci. Technol. 2015, 5, 3876–3902; b) K. K.
Ramasamy, M. Gray, H. Job, D. Santosa, X. S. Li, A. Devaraj, A.
Karkamkar, Y. Wang, Top. Catal. 2016, 59, 46–54.
[43] J. Sun, K. Zhu, F. Gao, C. Wang, J. Liu, C. H. F. Peden, Y. Wang, J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 11096–11099.
[44] D. Humbird, R. Davis, L. Tao, C. Kinchin, D. Hsu, A. Aden, P. Schoen,
J. Lukas, B. Olthof, M. Worley, et al., Renew. Energy 2011, 303, 147.
[45] Peters, Timmerhaus, Plant Design and Economics for Chemical
Engineers, 2004.
[46] a) EIA, “US Average Annual Industrial Electricity Rate,” can be found
under
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt
_5_3, 2017; b) EIA, “US Average Annual Industrial Natural Gas Rate,”
can be found under https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3035us3A.htm,
2017; c) P. L. Chu, C. Vanderghem, H. L. MacLean, B. A. Saville, Appl.
Energy 2017, 198, 401–409; d) T. R., B. R.C., W. B. Whiting, S. J.A.,
Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes, Prentice Hall,
2010.
[47] S. Jones, P. Meyer, L. Snowden-Swan, A. Padmaperuma, E. Tan, A.
Dutta, J. Jacobson, K. Cafferty, “Process Design and Economics for the
Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Hydrocarbon Fuels: Fast
Pyrolysis and Hydrotreating Bio-Oil Pathway”, 2013.
[48] G. Marrs, T. Spink, A. Gao, “Process Design and Economics for
Biochemical Conversion of Softwood Lignocellulosic Biomass to
Isoparaffinic Kerosene and Lignin Co-Products”, 2016.
[49] R. Petter, W. E. Tyner, ISRN Econ. 2014, 2014, 1–13.
[50] M. Zhang, Y. Yu, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 9505–9514.
[51] EIA, “U.S. Refinery Petroleum Product Prices,” can be found under
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_refoth_dcu_nus_m.htm, 2013.
[52] W. L. Luyben, Energy & Fuels 2008, 22, 4249–4258.
FULL PAPER
Entry for the Table of Contents

FULL PAPER
The ATJ Process provides a $10.00 Scott Geleynse, Kristin Brandt, Manuel
promising pathway for the production $9.00 Garcia-Perez, Michael Wolcott, Xiao
of alternative drop-in hydrocarbon $8.00 Zhang
fuels using sustainably produced $7.00
$6.00
alcohols. In this paper, we discuss Page No. – Page No.
$5.00
the key engineering barriers and use $4.00
The Alcohol-to-Jet Conversion
techno-economic assessment to $3.00 Pathway for Drop-In Biofuels:
Ethanol Techno-Economic Evaluation
evaluate potential commercial $2.00
$1.00 Isobutanol
implementations of this imminent
$0.00
alternative fuels process.
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500
$/gal Alcohol Price ($/ton)

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved